Tag Archives: Technology

Controlling your grow environment doesn’t start when you germinate your first seeds, it starts before you build your grow. There are steps you can take that will have a significant impact on mold growth and contamination, and these will vary based on the grow environment you choose.

Below is a roadmap to where each grow environment stands in terms of mold and contamination risk, and simple steps you can take to mitigate these factors.

Outdoor

The benefits of an outdoor grow are significant – using natural sunlight to grow plants is both inexpensive and environmentally sound. However, it allows the least amount of control and makes plants susceptible to weather conditions and outdoor contaminants including dust, wind, rain and insects. Depending on humidity and precipitation levels, mold can be a big issue as well.

Outdoor growing has obvious benefits, such as natural sunlight, but may also require extra steps to prevent contamination

When selecting an outdoor area for a cannabis farm, there are two important factors to consider: location and neighboring farmland. Geographical environments and sub-climates vary and once you have purchased land, you are committed, so be sure to consider these factors prior to purchase.

While arid desert climates have abundant sunlight and long growing seasons, flat, dry lands are subject to dust-storms, flash floods and exceedingly high winds that can damage crops. Conversely, more protected areas often have high humidity and rainfall late in the season, which can create huge issues with bud rot and mold. Neighboring farms also have an impact on your grow, so be sure to find out what they cultivate, what they spray, their harvest schedule and how they run their operation. Large farming equipment kicks up a lot of contaminant-laden dust and can damage crops by displacing insects to your farm if they harvest before you. Pesticide drift is also a major issue as even tiny amounts from a neighbor’s farm can cause your crops to fail testing, depending on what state you are in.

With outdoor grow environments always at the mercy of Mother Nature, any cultivator is wise to control contamination potential on the ground. Cover soil and protect your crop by planting cover crops and laying plastic mulch on as much ground as reasonable. In many cases it makes sense to irrigate uncultivated parts of your farm just to keep dust down.

Greenhouse

Greenhouses are the future of cannabis cultivation. They allow growers to capture the full spectrum and power of the sun while lessening environmental impact and operating expenses, while still being able to precisely control the environment to grow great cannabis. With recent advancements in greenhouse technology such as automated control systems, positive pressure, geothermal heating or cooling and LED supplemental lighting, greenhouses are the future. However, older or economy greenhouses that take in unfiltered air from outside still have a medium amount of mold and contamination risk.

A greenhouse grow facility

Before building your greenhouse, study the area while taking into account climate, weather conditions and sun exposure. Excessively windy areas can blow in contaminants, and extremely hot climates make cooling the greenhouse interior a challenging and costly endeavor.

There are several simple operational tactics to reduce contaminants in a greenhouse. Add a thrip screen to keep insects out, thoroughly clean pad walls with an oxidizing agent after each cycle, and keep plants at least 10 feet from pad walls. Plan to flip the entire greenhouse at once so that you can clean the greenhouse top to bottom before your next crop. A continuous harvest in your greenhouse allows contaminants to jump from one plant to the next and reduces the ability to control your environment and eliminate problems at the end of a cycle. Lastly, open shade curtains slowly in the morning. This prevents temperature inversion and condensation, which can cause water drops to fall from the ceiling and transfer contaminants onto plants below.

Indoor

An indoor environment offers ultimate control to any grow operation. Cultivators can grow high-quality cannabis with the smallest potential for yeast and mold growth. Unfortunately, indoor environments are extremely expensive, inefficient and environmentally costly.

An indoor cannabis operation set up (Image: Tall Trees LED Company)

With indoor grow environments, keeping mold and contaminants at bay comes down to following a regimented plan that keeps all grow aspects clean and in order. To keep your grow environment clean, change HVAC filters multiple times a month. It’s also important to install HEPA filters and UV lights in HVAC systems to further reduce contamination threats. Clearly mark air returns if they are near the ground and keep those areas free of clutter. They are the lungs of your grow. Also, stop using brooms in the grow space. They stir up a lot of contaminants that have settled to the floor. Instead, use HEPA filter backpack vacuums or install a central vacuum system. Set up a “dirty room” for anything messy on a separate HVAC system, and be sure to thoroughly clean pots after every harvest cycle.

As many states’ medical cannabis programs are already in full swing and several are launching or nearing their one-year or biennial maturation periods, medical cannabis dispensaries and cannabis cultivation and processing facilities should be fine-tuning their Continuing Cannabis Education Program, or CCEP, and be ready for inspection by state agencies.

While states with medical cannabis programs administer them through various agencies such as Department of Medicine/Health, Department of Pharmacy, Department of Commerce, Alcoholic Beverage Control, each has their own minimum requirements for continuing education in the medical cannabis space, and each structures their program in the direction within which that particular regulatory agency leans. Each state’s personality also brings an influential component as well; for example, a state with a highly visible opioid crisis may place greater emphasis on substance abuse training.

Suffice it to say that while there is certainly insight to be gained from knowing your particular state, there are certain elements of an ongoing professional development program that should be considered in each CCEP. This article will explore a few of the elements integral to any successful human capital and professional development plan from a vantage of compliance, and will offer some insight into the exceptional training methodology designed by Midwest Compassion Center and Bloom Medicinals.

There are a number of key considerations in developing a Continuing Cannabis Education Program, and a thoughtful CCEP should be developed specifically to meet the needs of both the organization and its employees. This can be done by a needs assessment consisting of three levels: organizational, occupational, and individual assessments.

Needs assessment and learning objectives. This part of the framework development asks you to consider what kind of training is needed in your organization. Once you have determined the training needed, you can set learning objectives to measure at the end of the training.

Organizational assessment. In this type of needs assessment, we can determine the skills, knowledge and abilities our cannabis dispensaries need in order to meet their strategic objectives. This type of assessment considers things such as changing laws, demographics and technology trends. Overall, this type of assessment looks at how the organization as a whole can handle its weaknesses while promoting strengths.

Occupational (task) assessment. This type of assessment looks at the specific tasks, skills, knowledge and abilities required of our employees to do the jobs necessary within our dispensaries.

Individual assessment. An individual assessment looks at the performance of an individual employee and determines what training should be accomplished for that individual.

Consideration of learning styles. Making sure to teach to a variety of learning styles is important to development of training programs.

Delivery mode. What is the best way to get your message across? Is classroom or web-based training more appropriate, or should one-on-one mentoring be used? Successful training programs should incorporate a variety of delivery methods.

How much money do you have to spend on this training? This does not only include the cost of materials, but the cost of time. Consideration should also be given to the costs associated with not investing in training: CFO asks CEO, “What happens if we invest in developing our people and then they leave us?” CEO: “What happens if we don’t, and they stay?”

Delivery style. Will the training be self-paced or instructor led? What kinds of discussions and interactions can be developed in conjunction with this training? The delivery style must take into account people’s individual learning styles. A balance of lectures, discussions, role-playing, and activities that solidify concepts are considered part of delivery style.

Audience. Who will be part of this training? Do you have a mix of roles, such as accounting people and marketing people? What are the job responsibilities of these individuals, and how can you make the training relevant to their individual jobs? The audience for the training is an important aspect when developing your CCEP. This can allow the training to be better developed to meet the needs and the skills of a particular group of people.

Content. What needs to be taught? How will you sequence the information? The content obviously is an important consideration. Learning objectives and goals for the training should be established and articulated before content is developed.

Timelines. How long will it take to develop the training? Is there a deadline for training to be completed, and if so, what risk analysis can be used to determine the consequences of not meeting that deadline? After content is developed, understanding time constraints is an important aspect. Will the training take one hour or a day to deliver? What is the timeline consideration in terms of when people should take the training?

Communication. How will employees know the training is available to them? Letting people know when and where the training will take place is part of communication.

Measuring effectiveness. How will you know if your training worked? What ways will you use to measure this? The final aspect of developing a training framework is to consider how it will be measured. At the end, how will you know if the trainees learned what they needed to learn?

A thorough review of your state’s rules and regulations should take place quarterly, with one or more specific employees designated to stay abreast of changes. If your regulatory authority has implemented requirements that trainings must be approved in advance, know that as well, and keep your Continuous Cannabis Education Program up-to-date and ready for inspection.

As cannabis conference backdrops go, Cologne (or Köln as it looks to the locals) has some major plusses. Cologne is a German city that has all sorts of both historical and cutting edge things to explore. Plus of course there is the timing. This part of the world just pre-Oktoberfest is a refreshing splash of multi-hued natural colors populated by people who wear lederhosen and dirndls in public (and with great enthusiasm).

Beyond its postcard settings, Cologne is a German center of medical research, as well as public policy making. The intricacies of pre and post war, not to mention post reunification politics, have made this whole region (which includes both Düsseldorf and Bonn) a major powerhouse in both deciding how things get done and then making sure they do. Including on all things scientific and medically focussed.

Overview of the Conference

Where German geographical proximity intersects with the global cannabis research and medical community is the work of the people who have made the International Association for Cannabis Medicines (IACM) one of the leading international scientific and medical cannabis conferences in the world. One look at the speakers list confirms that the top people in the cannabis research world came, spoke and even discussed unpublished research. Yes, that is the mark of a real academic conference. But in a world where medical efficacy is still being challenged, it is worth saying.

Even if you were not old enough to know about cannabis or well read, and had just showed up for the day, the subject matter and presentations were clear, easy to understand and stunning both individually and altogether.

Doctors Janice, Jessica and Rachel Knox, founders of the American Cannabinoid Clincs

Topics and abstracts ranged from trial data to changing legislation. Peppered between those were visions of where cannabis as medicine is clearly going as well as a far greater understanding of the role of the endocannabinoid system.

As a medical doctor, researcher, public policy expert or medical cannabis distributor, in other words, it is already a must-attend event. It is also packed with investors, not only from Europe but far from its shores.

If there was a message beyond the fact that the cannabis industry is now jumping the shark and going global, it was that the industry has now arrived in Europe and there is no turning back. On any front.

Most Interesting Highlights

It is very hard to pick which was the most ground-breaking research. It all is at this point and it is all fascinating. One of the most heartening abstracts was submitted from Montana. It was just a single patient study. However it showed visual evidence of a stage 1A malignant melanoma completely resolving after 60 days of treatment both topically and orally. Research out of Tel Aviv (of course) was presented showing that low doses of THC might even reverse age-associated cognitive impairments.

All of the genetic research into the plant not to mention new knowledge about terpenes was, literally, spell-binding to those who follow the science. Some of the presentations about ingestion technology in particular, were a clear indication of how much this world will be impacted by tech, where it is not already.

It was stunning just to sit and listen to ground-breaking science that is being produced by globally-known scholars at internationally renowned universities, but still ignored in every place where medical cannabis is not only still illegal, but out of reach of patients.

The current dire situation facing German medical users, of course, was frequently mentioned throughout the conference, and even from the presenting stage, as a human rights crisis.

The Ambassador Program

The conference was, by definition, not only an exchange of information and research, but also a gathering of the scientific cannabinoid community with a global reach. It was also clearly a gathering of academics and scientists on a mission. The dire need to educate both doctors and patients as the details and kinks get worked out on the ground is well recognized here. The IACM at least is also trying to do something about it.

On Friday night, the first full day of the conference, IACM organizers invited conference participants to a side meeting they at first wanted to limit to 30. The idea was to discuss the launch of an ongoing “Ambassador” program as well as a pilot project to help doctors and researchers communicate with each other. More than 60 people showed up and stayed, even if it meant standing against the wall for several hours.

The mood was helpful and light. Dr. Franjo Grotenherman, the best known and leading cannabis advocacy doctor in Germany, kicked off the gathering by serving food to guests before opening the floor to attendees to introduce themselves.

The idea clearly here, is to spread the word, no matter how, as quickly as possible.

An Intimate, Science-Based Networking Event

The event has a different vibe from purely “industry” events. While the industry was clearly in attendance, in other words, it was clearly there in a supportive role. The star of the show was the unbelievable wealth of scientific knowledge that spilled from the stage.

That is not to say that there was not a lot of business conducted here. On all levels. The networking is terrific. And this being the cannabis industry, most people are friendly, open and willing to give a polite stranger a few minutes of their time.

This is an absolutely intriguing event to consider, particularly for Americans who do not have much insight into the European medical or scientific worlds when it comes to cannabis. That includes cannabis clinics in legalizing states to prescribing doctors looking for medical evidence of using CBD in treating their patients. Canadians, Israelis and Swiss were here in force, beyond the locals with representatives from most countries in Europe. If looking to network with an international crowd of doctors, scientists and companies on the cutting edge of cannabis globally, this is absolutely one of the best places on the planet to be.

A number of cannabis businesses have pursued federal intellectual property protection for their cannabis-related innovations, such as U.S. patents that protect novel cannabis plant varieties, growing methods, extraction methods, etc. Enforcement of such federal IP rights requires that the IP owner file suit in federal court asserting those rights against another cannabis company. However, given that cannabis is still illegal under federal law, the industry is uncertain about whether a federal court will actually enforce cannabis-related IP rights. This question might be answered soon.

The potential impact of this case goes way beyond the two parties involvedOrochem Technologies, Inc. filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on September 27, 2017, seeking to assert and enforce trade secret rights against Whole Hemp Company, LLC. According to the complaint, Orochem is a biotechnology company that uses proprietary separation methods to extract and purify cannabidiol (CBD) from industrial hemp in a way that produces a solvent-free and THC-free CBD product in commercially viable quantities.

The complaint goes on to say that Whole Hemp Company, which does business as Folium Biosciences, is a producer of CBD from industrial hemp and that Folium engaged Orochem to produce a THC-free CBD product for it. According to the allegations in the complaint, Folium used that engagement to gain access to and discover the details of Orochem’s trade secret method of extracting CBD so that it could take the process and use it at their facility.

The complaint provides a detailed story of the events that allegedly transpired, which eventually led to an Orochem employee with knowledge of the Orochem process leaving and secretly starting to work for Folium, where he allegedly helped Folium establish a CBD production line that uses Orochem’s trade secret process. When Orochem learned of these alleged transgressions, it filed the lawsuit, claiming that Folium (and the specific employee) had misappropriated its trade secret processes for extracting and purifying CBD.

While the particular facts of this case are both interesting and instructive for companies operating in the cannabis industry, the potential impact of this case goes way beyond the two parties involved.

If it moves forward, this case will likely provide a first glimpse into the willingness of federal courts to enforce IP rights that relate to cannabis. Orochem is asserting a violation of federal IP rights established under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and is asserting those rights in federal district court. As a result, the federal district court judge will first need to decide whether a federal court can enforce federal IP rights when the underlying intellectual property relates to cannabis.

If the court ultimately enforces these federal trade secret rights, it could be a strong indication that other federal IP rights, such as patent rights, would also be enforceable in federal court. Since the outcome of this case will likely have a far reaching and long lasting impact on how the cannabis industry approaches and deals with intellectual property, it’s a case worth watching.

According to a press release published earlier this week, DB Labs achieved accreditation, becoming the first ISO 17025-accredited cannabis laboratory in Las Vegas. DB Labs received their accreditation with the help of Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation, Inc., an organization that provides third-party assessments to ISO/IEC 17025:2005. DB Labs was also the very first cannabis-testing lab in the state of Nevada.

According to Susan Bunce, president of DB Labs, ISO accreditation is one way the cannabis lab space is being standardized. “As the first cannabis-testing laboratory in Nevada, DB Labs has always taken patient safety very seriously and has always tried to raise the bar,” says Bunce. “The world of cannabis testing is often compared to the Wild West: each lab uses state regulations to set their standards, but it leaves a lot of room for subjective interpretations. The ISO accreditation removes the ambiguity and guarantees a consistent level of testing to users. We are proud to be a part of that.”

According to Tracy Szerszen, president and operations manager at Perry Johnson, ISO/IEC 17025:2005 is an international standard utilized to accredit testing laboratories. “This accreditation provides confidence to end-users that the test results they receive are reliable,” says Szerszen. “Laboratories achieving this accreditation have demonstrated their ability to adequately perform tests using appropriate equipment, environmental conditions and technical staff.” She says another requirement for that accreditation is a quality management system, which essentially helps manage operations and client needs. “Achieving this type of accreditation is quite challenging for laboratories especially with all of the new up-and-coming regulations, technologies and methods in the cannabis industry,” says Szerszen. “Laboratory testing is such a critical part of this industry and becoming accredited provides assurance that they are performing to the highest standard.”

As Szerszen points out, laboratory accreditation can provide a consumer that sense of confidence and trust in the product’s lab testing. “PJLA would like to commend DB Labs for achieving their ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation and their commitment towards meeting the standard,” says Szerszen.

The news of their accreditation comes at an opportune time: With surging consumer demand at the outset of recreational sales, the state has raked in millions of dollars in sales within the first weekend. Recreational cannabis sales in Nevada began on July 1st, and a statewide cannabis product shortage recently led to Governor Sandoval issuing a statement of emergency, allowing more applications for distribution licenses to be considered.

According to a press release, the State of Delaware has chosen BioTrackTHC as their partner in seed-to-sale tracking software. Delaware’s Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) signed a contract with BioTrackTHC for the tracking and patient registry software.

In 2016, Delaware issued a request for proposals for “the Delaware Enterprise Consolidated Cannabis Control System,” which encompasses the statewide patient registry and seed-to-sale traceability systems. “Our sincerest thanks to DHSS for choosing Team BioTrack,” says Patrick Vo, CEO of BioTrackTHC. “DHSS has been wonderful to work with throughout the contracting process, and we look forward to partnering with them to provide the tools and data they need to continue overseeing the industry and protecting their patients.” BioTrack’s software was selected as the winner of a number of government contracts in other states previously for the same role.

Their software is currently used in government traceability systems in Washington, New Mexico, Illinois, Hawaii, New York and the city of Arcata, California. The press release states regulators will have the ability to view the retail data “including plant counts and usable inventory, lab results, transportation, and point-of-sale data—to perform periodic audits and ensure compliance.” The patient registry will also provide better patient accessibility through the new software with a faster turn around time and automated application processing.

BioTrackTHC provides technology solutions for businesses and governments to tracking products throughout the supply chain to the point of sale. The software systems help businesses remain compliant with regulations and monitor data for things like inventory management.

Almost as soon as cannabis became recreationally legal, the public started to ask questions about the safety of products being offered by dispensaries – especially in terms of pesticide contamination. As we can see from the multiple recalls of product there is a big problem with pesticides in cannabis that could pose a danger to consumers. While The Nerd Perspective is grounded firmly in science and fact, the purpose of this column is to share my insights into the cannabis industry based on my years of experience with multiple regulated industries with the goal of helping the cannabis industry mature using lessons learned from other established markets. In this article, we’ll take a look at some unique challenges facing cannabis testing labs, what they’re doing to respond to the challenges, and how that can affect the cannabis industry as a whole.

Photo: Michelle Tribe, Flickr

The Big Challenge

Over the past several years, laboratories have quickly ‘grown up’ in terms of technology and expertise, improving their methods for pesticide detection to improve data quality and lower detection limits, which ultimately ensures a safer product by improving identification of contaminated product. But even though cannabis laboratories are maturing, they’re maturing in an environment far different than labs from regulated industry, like food laboratories. Food safety testing laboratories have been governmentally regulated and funded from almost the very beginning, allowing them some financial breathing room to set up their operation, and ensuring they won’t be penalized for failing samples. In contrast, testing fees for cannabis labs are paid for by growers and producers – many of whom are just starting their own business and short of cash. This creates fierce competition between cannabis laboratories in terms of testing cost and turnaround time. One similarity that the cannabis industry shares with the food industry is consumer and regulatory demand for safe product. This demand requires laboratories to invest in instrumentation and personnel to ensure generation of quality data. In short, the two major demands placed on cannabis laboratories are low cost and scientific excellence. As a chemist with years of experience, scientific excellence isn’t cheap, thus cannabis laboratories are stuck between a rock and a hard place and are feeling the squeeze.

Responding to the Challenge

One way for high-quality laboratories to win business is to tout their investment in technology and the sophistication of their methods; they’re selling their science, a practice I stand behind completely. However, due to the fierce competition between labs, some laboratories have oversold their science by using terms like ‘lethal’ or ‘toxic’ juxtaposed with vague statements regarding the discovery of pesticides in cannabis using the highly technical methods that they offer. This juxtaposition can then be reinforced by overstating the importance of ultra-low detection levels outside of any regulatory context. For example, a claim stating that detecting pesticides at the parts per trillion level (ppt) will better ensure consumer safety than methods run by other labs that only detect pesticides at concentrations at parts per billion (ppb) concentrations is a potentially dangerous claim in that it could cause future problems for the cannabis industry as a whole. In short, while accurately identifying contaminated samples versus clean samples is indeed a good thing, sometimes less isn’t more, bringing us to the second half of the title of this article.

Less isn’t always more…

The Milky Way

In my last article, I illustrated the concept of the trace concentrations laboratories detect, finishing up with putting the concept of ppb into perspective. I wasn’t even going to try to illustrate parts per trillion. Parts per trillion is one thousand times less concentrated than parts per billion. To put ppt into perspective, we can’t work with water like I did in my previous article; we have to channel Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The Milky Way galaxy contains about 100 billion stars, and our sun is one of them. Our lonely sun, in the vastness of our galaxy, where light itself takes 100,000 years to traverse, represents a concentration of 10 ppt. On the surface, detecting galactically-low levels of contaminants sounds wonderful. Pesticides are indeed lethal chemicals, and their byproducts are often lethal or carcinogenic as well. From the consumer perspective, we want everything we put in our bodies free of harmful chemicals. Looking at consumer products from The Nerd Perspective, however, the previous sentence changes quite a bit. To be clear, nobody – nerds included – wants food or medicine that will poison them. But let’s explore the gap between ‘poison’ and ‘reality’, and why that gap matters.

In reality, according to a study conducted by the FDA in 2011, roughly 37.5% of the food we consume every day – including meat, fish, and grains – is contaminated with pesticides. Is that a good thing? No, of course it isn’t. It’s not ideal to put anything into our bodies that has been contaminated with the byproducts of human habitation. However, the FDA, EPA, and other governmental agencies have worked for decades on toxicological, ecological, and environmental studies devoted to determining what levels of these toxic chemicals actually have the potential to cause harm to humans. Rather than discuss whether or not any level is acceptable, let’s take it on principle that we won’t drop over dead from a lethal dose of pesticides after eating a salad and instead take a look at the levels the FDA deem ‘acceptable’ for food products. In their 2011 study, the FDA states that “Tolerance levels generally range from 0.1 to 50 parts per million (ppm). Residues present at 0.01 ppm and above are usually measurable; however, for individual pesticides, this limit may range from 0.005 to 1 ppm.” Putting those terms into parts per trillion means that most tolerable levels range from 100,000 to 50,000,000 ppt and the lower limit of ‘usually measurable’ is 10,000 ppt. For the food we eat and feed to our children, levels in parts per trillion are not even discussed because they’re not relevant.

A specific example of this is arsenic. Everyone knows arsenic is very toxic. However, trace levels of arsenic naturally occur in the environment, and until 2004, arsenic was widely used to protect pressure-treated wood from termite damage. Because of the use of arsenic on wood and other arsenic containing pesticides, much of our soil and water now contains some arsenic, which ends up in apples and other produce. These apples get turned into juice, which is freely given to toddlers everywhere. Why, then, has there not an infant mortality catastrophe? Because even though the arsenic was there (and still is), it wasn’t present at levels that were harmful. In 2013, the FDA published draft guidance stating that the permissible level of arsenic in apple juice was 10 parts per billion (ppb) – 10,000 parts per trillion. None of us would think twice about offering apple juice to our child, and we don’t have to…because the dose makes the poison.

How Does This Relate to the Cannabis Industry?

The concept of permissible exposure levels (a.k.a. maximum residue limits) is an important concept that’s understood by laboratories, but is not always considered by the public and the regulators tasked with ensuring cannabis consumer safety. As scientists, it is our job not to misrepresent the impact of our methods or the danger of cannabis contaminants. We cannot understate the danger of these toxins, nor should we overstate their danger. In overstating the danger of these toxins, we indirectly pressure regulators to establish ridiculously low limits for contaminants. Lower limits always require the use of newer testing technologies, higher levels of technical expertise, and more complicated methods. All of this translates to increased testing costs – costs that are then passed on to growers, producers, and consumers. I don’t envy the regulators in the cannabis industry. Like the labs in the cannabis industry, they’re also stuck between a rock and a hard place: stuck between consumers demanding a safe product and producers demanding low-cost testing. As scientists, let’s help them out by focusing our discussion on the real consumer safety issues that are present in this market.

In a New York Times article published yesterday, news broke of Microsoft’s entry into the cannabis marketplace, teaming up with KIND Financial to launch its Microsoft Health and Human Services Pod for Managed Service Providers, which is essentially a seed-to-sale tracking technology. Their goal is to provide local and state governments with software solutions for traceability in the burgeoning cannabis industry.

In a press release yesterday, Kimberly Nelson, executive director of state and local government solutions from Microsoft said, “KIND’s strategic industry positioning, experienced team and top-notch-technology running in the Microsoft Azure Government cloud, made for an easy decision to align efforts.” According to KIND Financial founder and chief executive officer, David Dinenberg, the cannabis marketplace will continue to have strict oversight and government regulations. “I am delighted that Microsoft supports KIND’s mission to build the backbone for cannabis compliance,” says Dinenberg.

This move could represent an opening of the floodgates for corporate interest in the space. According to Matt Karnes, founder of GreenWave Advisors, a cannabis financial data analysis firm, this could potentially result in an increase in capital flow into the cannabis industry. “This signals a wider acceptance of cannabis and perhaps that changes to national policies are more likely now that we see a large corporation stepping in,” says Karnes. “This could certainly mean an inflow of capital from larger, mainstream enterprises that were previously unwilling to take the risk.” Microsoft also made news recently for the acquisition of LinkedIn for $26.2 billion. The move to get into the cannabis space could represent a diminishing stigma associated with the market and a wider mainstream acceptance in business.

According to Nic Easley, chief executive officer at Comprehensive Cannabis Consulting (3C), this is another legitimizing factor for the cannabis industry. “It shows that cannabis is here to stay, and the fact that Microsoft is now spending resources on software, further validates that,” says Easley. “Many of the first mover seed-to-sale companies, entered the industry too early, had problems with their technology and lacked quality customer service, which created opportunities for new companies to emerge to dominate and capitalize upon the first ‘Netscapes’ of the cannabis industry’s failures.” Additionally, this could rationalize the market for other quality software companies such as Compliant Cannabis, according to Easley.

While Microsoft publicly announced their entrance into the cannabis marketplace, one can speculate that other large companies are planning their entrance as well. “We are fielding inquiries from Fortune 500 companies, Wall Street investors and even major foreign investors on a weekly basis,” says Easley. “In the past week alone, we received calls from three different Fortune 500 companies asking us how they can get into the industry.” It appears that because Microsoft is in the cloud business and they are offering this ancillary service that not only does this further legitimize the industry, but it could be quelling the dated stigma associated with cannabis.

Successful cannabis cultivation practices leverage commercial agricultural industry practices for the most efficient and cost-effective production of the crop. Since the 1990s, the cannabis industry has cultivated primarily in indoor warehouses and outdoor farms, however the industry is experiencing a significant shift toward greenhouses.

What are the considerations when deciding between a warehouse and greenhouse? The panel shares four factors around the costs and operational challenges, and the benefits of a greenhouse.

The panel at the Marijuana Business Conference.

Maximize Efficiency in Every Process

Why are cannabis cultivators looking toward greenhouses? Peterson says it is all about efficiency. “In a warehouse, electricity costs can run up to 50 percent of the total cost of goods sold, which is a tremendous amount that can be decreased by switching to a greenhouse,” says Peterson. “In a greenhouse, you can add supplemental lighting to augment what the plant is receiving from the sun.”

For cultivators, Peterson noted that it is critical to ensure growers have experienced vendors and advisors on the team to help maximize the efficiency of the greenhouse. “As the cost of this product comes down, the efficient growers will be the ones in it for the long haul,” added Peterson.

Construction vs. Operating Costs

A greenhouse facility that urban-gro helped bring to operation.

The panel identified upfront cost as one of the biggest challenges faced when building out a greenhouse. “The cost of retrofitting a warehouse and building a greenhouse are similar, but where you will save is in the operational costs,” says Peterson. “Lighting can be up to one third of your total cost in indoor facilities, when you switch to a greenhouse that cost can be reduced by 50 to 70 percent.”

Brady acknowledged that some traditional greenhouses have challenges in controlling the environment, but automated greenhouses offer retractable roofs and siding. “If you have the resources to invest in your greenhouse system upfront, that is generally a better way to save money in the long run,” says Brady. “Managing pests in greenhouses can also become very challenging if you don’t have the proper climate regulations.”

Lighting for Your Greenhouse

One of the greatest benefits of growing in a greenhouse is the ability to source natural light. But what about the required light levels? Peterson pointed out that light levels change throughout the year and the plants have different light needs in different stage. Supplement with a lighting system that can read the natural light levels received over any given period of time and be adjusted accordingly. “Greenhouse facilities also need to be outfitted to meet the needs of the cannabis plant, which differ in some ways from other agricultural crops,” says Peterson.

Peterson explained that every light is designed with a different purpose in mind. “There are different lights for indoor warehouse facilities where the lighting system provides 100 percent of the available light for cannabis growth versus supplemental lighting for greenhouses,” Peterson adds. “The key is to measure how much light is actually delivered by the sun on a daily basis, which changes throughout the year; at urban-gro, we supplement the facility with light fixtures that will not create shadowing during hours of sunlight and adjust to reach the optimal collective light levels.”

With LED lighting a hot button topic, Peterson explained that the most important consideration for any light fixture, whether LED or HPS, is it’s efficiency capacity. “It all depends on the budget and payback period and a lot of numbers need to be crunched,” says Peterson. “Yield is directly correlated to light; planning properly, sealing your environment, making sure you have the right target DLI, and buying good light meters, are all key.”

Make a Positive Impact and Quality Product

Brady noted that industry leaders are conscious of positive impact towards human health and environmental stewardship when moving to a greenhouse. Cultivators may find the process challenging initially, however the facilities are quite easy to operate and manage, and allow stress-free cultivation of commercial-scale crops.

Keich added that the cannabis industry is becoming more like commercial agriculture. By utilizing the correct technologies and regulators, greenhouse cultivation makes the crop smell, taste and look that much better. “Let’s use natural sunlight to minimize costs and be environmentally friendly to produce a superior product,” says Keich.

Peterson wrapped up by stressing that cultivators should evaluate the greenhouse environment and lighting to improve their bottom line. “Look at the most efficient way to lower your cost of goods sold. Lighting is a very big component to that,” she continued. “Make sure you evaluate the efficiency of the fixture and ask the questions: Why are we targeting this light level? Is the color spectrum correct? Are you measuring in micromoles per watt? These are all different questions, however figure out how much light is coming out of the fixture and verify it for yourself, and you will be successful,” says Peterson.

The preferred choice for indoor cannabis growing has long been high-pressure sodium (HPS) 1000-watt light bulbs during flowering. Light-emitting diodes (LED) are quickly changing the indoor farming landscape with innovative technologies and promising energy savings. Many think the technology still needs time to develop. There are certainly many pros and cons to switching an indoor cultivation facility from HPS to LED lighting systems.

Steve Kruss, president of Light-Waves Electronics, Inc., gave a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of various light sources at the CannaGrow Conference and Expo. “The first adopters [of LED light technology] more than two years ago did not get the results they wanted, so many growers gave them a bad rap very early on,” says Kruss. His discussion delved into the pros and cons of both LED and HPS lights in growing cannabis.

Light-Waves Electronics Inc. LED fixtures being installed in a cultivation facility.

It is important to highlight the weaknesses in many common HPS systems and the possible solutions that LED technology could offer. According to Kruss, HPS lights do not match the light spectrum’s photosynthesis curve that plants need to absorb energy. HPS lights give off a tremendous amount of heat that requires more energy to cool a facility down with an HVAC system, increasing energy costs for growers. Since LED’s use 50% less wattage, they produce approximately 50% less heat, significantly reducing cooling costs. HPS light bulbs need to be replaced multiple times per year. Quality LED fixtures can last more than 50,000 hours, or roughly eleven years. “The reality is HPS is putting a lot of light out but that energy is wasted because so much of it is in a light spectrum that plants do not absorb,” says Kruss. Perhaps most important is the lack of ability to vary the light spectrum; any light that HPS bulbs produce that the plant does not absorb is essentially wasted energy.

LED light bulbs provide a solution to the wasted light in HPS by targeting the particular spectrum that plants need for photosynthesis. By targeting the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), roughly 400-700nm, LEDs can effectively mimic the sun’s ability to produce the wavelength of light specifically needed in a certain stage of cultivation. The absorption spectra and action spectra are wavelengths of light preferable for harvest as well as plant growth and metabolism, respectively. LED manufacturers and growers commonly try to harness the Emerson Effect, which uses red (670nm) and far red (700nm) to increase the rate of photosynthesis.

A plant in flowering under a Light-Waves Electronics LED fixture

The benefits of LED lights in growing cannabis are numerous. The primary benefit is that it provides light at the specific wavelengths chosen to match the specific needs of plants. When finely tuned, LEDs can influence the growth process by slowing down vegetative plant growth and inducing flowering when appropriate. LEDs are more energy efficient than their counterparts partially because they give off substantially less heat in the beam itself, reducing cooling costs. Some growers use LEDs together with HPS lights, some use LEDs with natural sunlight in a greenhouse setting and some use strictly LEDs for the entire growth cycle. Each cultivation operation has its own budgetary restraints and structural limitations, but energy efficiency is one area that all growers should look to improve. According to Adam Koh, chief cultivation officer of Comprehensive Cannabis Consulting (3C), indoor growers can get away with T5 fluorescent lamps (which do not consume much energy) throughout the vegetative process.

For some, the debate is over and growers recognize the added benefits that LEDs bring to growing cannabis. According to Kruss, LED technology is almost there. “In terms of yields, LED lights are providing around 75% of the weight that HPS produces, but on the vegetative side, the growth is considerably faster which could make up for that weight loss with faster grow cycles and an extra harvest,” says Kruss.

An LED cultivation operation set up by Tall Trees LED Company

Adam Jacques, award-winning grower and founder of Growers’ Guild Gardens, has used LEDs in tandem with sunlight. Him and his team have bred and grown cannabis in indoor, greenhouse and outdoor operations. “I love the huge steps that some LED manufacturers have made in the past year,” says Jacques. “When I utilize them within a greenhouse setting I really like the product it grows.” Jacques’ findings in the field echo Kruss’ statements that LED lights have made considerable progress very recently. “It does take a little dialing in due to the plants’ increased feeding regiment, but it is a small price to pay for all of the benefits we see,” adds Jacques. His success with the new technology is representative of a larger trend; more and more growers are beginning to implement LEDs in some form.

Some claim the yield is less from LED lights during flowering.

Maxx Wiley and Robert Manes, co-founders of Tall Trees LED Company based in Arizona, believe their technology is on par with the yields other growers are getting with different light sources. “We conducted heads-up tests with our 500-watt LEDs versus other 1000-watt HPS bulbs and have seen very impressive results,” says Wiley. “The plants under our lights were consistently getting more weight and more flowers; the flowers appeared smaller but were actually denser and heavier in reality.” Wiley’s company makes commercial LED luminaires that are IP 65 waterproof rated and he claims they never had any issues with failures. The technology uses no moving parts to cool the lights, just metal clad circuit boards, heat sinks and conductive thermal-bonding materials. “We have had customers run potency analyses and have found tremendous variation in plants grown with HPS,” says Wiley. “We see more compound production and more consistency crop-to-crop with our LED technology.” There are currently a handful of manufacturers bringing innovative designs to market.

A cultivation operation in Maine using GS Thermal Solution liquid-cooled LED fixtures

GS Thermal Solutions, based in Connecticut, manufactures 1000-watt LED fixtures that are liquid-cooled. The company makes lights that are fully adjustable, so growers can dial in each spectrum of light intensity independently and tailor to specific strains as well as stages of growth. According to Rick Rhyins, vice president of sales at GS Thermal Solutions, the liquid cooling technology allows for a much longer lifetime of the LED and a much more efficient energy consumption. “Our technology addresses the shortcomings and previous problems with early generation LED models,” says Rhyins. Coupled with facility automation, GS Thermal Solutions uses a central control system to monitor cooling, light intensity and spectra, nutrient monitoring and feed control.

Yet some are still skeptical of the LED lighting in today’s market and feel the technology is not there yet. Nic Easley, chief executive officer of Comprehensive Cannabis Consulting (3C), has brought over sixty cultivation operations to market and is hesitant to endorse the technology at this point. “I will never be an early adopter when it comes to new lighting technology and I feel we are at least a year out from seeing consistently efficient LED lighting,” says Easley. “There are still a lot of false claims out there and I want to wait until I see repeatable results on a small scale before I feel comfortable endorsing LED lights for cannabis cultivation.” While companies will continue to innovate lighting solutions for indoor cultivation, in many cases (but not all) it seems using the sun to grow cannabis would be more energy efficient.